So the "new kind of politics" is that Obama will say anything to help him get elected?

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds kind of old school, doesn't it?

Interesting point about Obama trying to get through the Democratic nomination with his appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents intact. It raises the question as to whether it's possible for there to even be a Democratic President if our nomination process filters out anyone who might appeal to enough moderate non-Democrats to actually win in the general election.

Clinton was pretty moderate, but even he had to rely on the assistance of Ross Perot to squeak into office. The rest of our nominees over the past three decades have gone down hard in the general election after locking up the Democratic nomination without too much trouble. It'll be interesting to see, indeed.

Barack Obama = Better sounding version of Joe Lieberman. Lieberman and Obama are both Independent Democrats now. If Obama heates the party so much, he should join a Republican think tank.  

Obama had his eyes on getting the endorsement from a conservative editorial board, and so he said what he knew they wanted to hear. He pandered.

And yes, Obama wants to walk a tightrope to the Democratic nomination by running as a bipartisan AA candidate. For those of us paying attention, this strategy was evident from the very beginning of his candidacy.  Just go back to his first "we must be non-partisan" speech that he gave at the DNC meeting almost a year ago.  Remember that bizarre opening shot?

There is certainly reason to believe that Obama and his advisers believe, very deeply, that the first AA President of the United State will have to be a non-threatening, bipartisan type candidate (Or worse...a moderate Republican like Colin Powell?) And I cannot say that I disagree with their analysis. (BTW:  I also believe that Clark is the logical VP choice for Obama.)

In at least one sense, I tend to disagree with Jerome's ominous suggestion that "the strategy" is sealed. Obama will continue to be BOTH bipartisan (in front of certain audiences) and partisan (in front of other audiences). That is how he has conducted his campaign so far, and the fact of the matter is that he is essentially pulling it off with only the blogosphere really noting some of the contradictions. The rest of the electorate?  Not so much.

As long as the MSM continues to pump him up, and provide him with flattering photos, cover shots, and stories of excitement and adoration, his likability will carry him to victories. He can be all things to all people, a screen on which to project our hopes, wishes and dreams. Partisan?  He's partisan.  Non-partisan?  He's non-partisan. It's working...

It will be interesting to see if the democratic electorate in the primaries and caucuses ahead, and all the surrounding circumstances, will provide Obama with a victory.  It will essentially come down to the MSM. If they desert him (not likely), I do not think he will prevail. If the MSM continues its love affair, his chances are quite good.

I have no problem with triangulating on policy and framing (within reason).

What I have a big problem with is Barack Dubya Obama's willingness to trash Democrats and the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy is just an old fool to Dubya Obama. LBJ was next of kin to George Wallace in Obamaland. Bill Clinton is David Duke in The Chosen One's rhetoric. And, of course, everyone in the entire Democratic Party, except him of course, is corrupt, lining  their pockets with bribe money.

For whoever cares the last Zogby Poll coming out later in the morning has,

Clinton 45 (up from 42)

Obama   39  (up from 37)

Edwards  6   ( down from 12 )

Zogby polls are the worst so lets just wait for the results.

but Gen Clark is a loser. He is a typical dem politician.  I guess since Obama isn't winning, then you might as well pick someone that isn't a winner for his VP hypothethically.

Hillary will Pick winner as the real vp nominee:

it could be Obama if he can get his act together after he loses the dem nom.

strickland in ohio is a winner

support a candidate who's willing to discuss Reagan (and get misquoted, mischaracterized and maligned by all the SAME people who, uh, oppose him anyway),  than a campaign that ACTS LIKE Reagan and sends Bill Clinton out to support a lawsuit whose sole purpose is to suppress the vote of working people on the Las Vegas strip.

Not just Union members, all working people on the strip.

An ex-President who gives the GOP talking points for every voter suppression lawsuit they take up this fall.

That's not talking about Reagan, that's ACTING like Reagan.

Clark still matches up very well with Obama and there will be plenty of time for all but obsessive political junkies to get over Clark's endorsement.  Instead, Obama will be seen as reaching out to the Clintons.  Of course, Obama has to win first...

That's what I really want in a Democratic President, a man who will pander for Republican votes.

His notion that he will say difficult things tha people don't want to hear goes out the window when is chasing votes and talking to a right wing paper?

Its called pandering and it isn't different.

If that is the case the millions of people are voting for a myth.  Something that doesn't exist.  How many times has some Obama supporters gushed and said they support him because he is different, and he is honest, and he doesn't pander?

For the Intelligent out there.  What Obama was saying that Reagan, like him, was able to reach across the great divide and bring in Democrats.  Has anyone heard of the Republican Democrats.  Obama too has the attraction to bring in Republicans and Indepedents and to unite this country in a way it has not been since back in the great depression.  

And also, More and more people are tired and turned off by staged polititcians - like the answers given the other night at the deabe--Hillary's greatest weakness is how much she cares for the people. Edwards also gave a phony answer which seemed more about his compassion than a weakness.  GIVE ME A BREAK!  Politicians who give these contrived and phony answers are more concerned about them and not about you, the people. They are not trying to connect with you in any meaningful way,  but trying to manipulate you -- by staged and phony answers, Washingtonian Answers.  

In this era of the Greening of America, people are moving toward a more holistic way of living: organic foods and household items free of pesticides and chemicals, more effecient appliances to aid in the cleaning up of greenhouse gases among other things, solar and wind -- clean energy.  However, we also want more Efficient and Cleaner Politicians. Ones we can believe in and ones we know are speaking to us, not at us, who are not trying to control and manipulate the us, the masses, for their own personal gains. That's how we get into wars by politicians who go along to get along for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN and not concerned about the degradation of what will happen to You, the Planet, and -- to the PEOPLE!

Barack Obama belongs on the Republican Ticket. Read his book, The Audacity of Hope. It is a treatise to RIGHT-WING talking points, and in it, he tells you straight out which party he belongs to:

Obama rejects "the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace `socialized medicine.' "

Obama says about Bush: "I assume he [Bush] and members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country..."

Obama denounces the "ethic of greed" in corporate boardrooms and calls for "a stronger sense of empathy", but he says this "does not mean that those who are struggling...are thereby freed from trying to understand the perspectives of those who are better off."

"Union representatives can't afford not to understand the competitive pressures their employers may be under."

He pontificates: "... conservatives...were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work, and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy...the old AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self-respect. Any strategy to reduce intergenerational poverty has to be centered on work, not welfare."

Channeling Newt Gingrich only more eloquent!

Obama pays tribute to the "sincerity, openness, humility, and good humor" of "even the most overtly, religious senators"--men like Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, or Tom Coburn--i.e., the pack of reactionary, fundamentalist thugs who comprise(d) the Republican senatorial caucus.

Obama expresses his tactical differences with Bush on Iraq, while recording his essential agreement with the Bush doctrine of preemptive war("we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security") and calling for more spending on the military. He recommends a conditional "phased withdrawal" of US troops from Iraq, while proposing to redeploy military forces elsewhere in the area and around the globe to protect America's "national interest."

Obama rejects "isolationism," and argues that "there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change--nor should it."

Obama's principal cause for anxiety about the Bush Iraq strategy is its abject failure--not the policy itself. He endorses the first Gulf war, praising "George H. W. Bush and his team" for "engaging in the hard diplomatic work of obtaining most of the world's support for our actions, and making sure our actions serve to further recognize international norms."

Obama embraces free trade and globalization as is--i.e., globalization under the aegis of vast conglomerates. He praises Clinton for his support for the "new economy" and politely rejects the AFL-CIO's protectionism.

He touches on the "bankruptcy of communism and socialism as alternative means of economic organization," Obama argues for a greater role for government "in dealing with market failures," while complimenting Reagan for his "central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic."

He argues for recasting the New Deal's "social compact to meet the needs of a new century," but enumerates ONLY a proposal to raise the minimum wage. He wants to shore up the unions, by tightening regulations at the National Labor Relations Board; he calls for moves to make Social Security solvent, but doesn't reject the decline in defined-benefit pension plans.

He genuflects to religiosity by recounting his own religious conversion about the day I was "finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church and be baptized, kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

Well, as he says in his book, "Americans are a religious people." And, Barack Obama wants Republican voters to know that he's one of them.

How about a Party of "Loyalty Oath?

If supporters of any candidate says this is ok, we have already lost

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/0 1/supreme_court_denies_kucinich.php

Obama has had more passes than any other candidate.. This time we should take it that he says what he means and means what he says..  There should be no excuses...  So, whats next: Obama/Lieberman ?

A thought:
If Obama is the nominee how is he going to fight against the GOP? The GOP can say "but you think Reagan was a transformational President don't you?" or "you said the GOP is the party of ideas, didn't you"? He's put himself in a very bad position to defend any democratic ideas.

I remember 4 years ago Dean quoted Truman who said "Why vote for a fake Republican when you can have a real one?" Legitimizing the ideas of the opposition isn't the way to win.

I guess i'm just 'excessive.'

Cuz in the late '60s and well into the '70s, while Obama was still sucking at his momma's pap, I--along with millions of my peers--was in the streets remonstrating with the People to end the Vietnam war, pass the ERA, increase union membership, end air and water pollution, save iconic species, and rein in corpoRat oiligarchs and pollutocrats.

Fuck You, Barry!

or is that too excessive?

The only reason why this was not smart politically is because it can be mischaracterized so easily, as most people here have.

He didn't say the Republicans have had good ideas, only that they had ideas.

It's sort of like Time's Man of the Year which has gone to Hitler and Stalin because their criteria is the person who has had the greatest impact.  It doesn't mean the most admirable person!

I'm kind of embarrassed for the progressive movement that people either don't understand this distinction or want to present it in this way for political advantage.

>I've said all along that it's the calculation which is going to keep him from getting the nomination,

I hope you're right.

Raygun's great ability was to fuck the Nation in the ass and make 'em not only like it, but beg for a bigger, harder dick...I think its that ability Obama admires...and will perfect, if he's 'elected.'

I would never express "outrage" at a statement of fact.

If Obama wins the presidency, I fully expect to be disappointed on a range of topics, but not nearly as disappointed as a I would be if Hillary, John or any of the Republicans got elected.

Obama's policies and votes are not very different from Clinton. It is just for cosmetic reasons that you consider her a Dino and Obama not.

Jerome,

I have disagreed with you vigorously on many occasions.  On this occasion, I want to give you some credit for an honest and plausible explanation.

As usual, I disagree with some of your characterization of Obama's comments, but I think you got the basic facts right.  Obama was seeking an endorsement from a conservative paper and was trying to make his case in words that would make sense to the people he was talking to.  Whether or not this is "pandering" or "effective framing" is debatable.

I believe what is less debatable is the historic accuracy of Obama's statement.  Reagan did transform the arc of American politics.  I would argue, as would most Dems, that he did so in a very negative way. But Obama is right that Reagan tapped into the zeitgeist of the time and that he changed the alignment of our politics for a generation.  

Nixon was a conservative who served at a time when liberal values were ascendant.  Look at many of the laws passed during his administration:  Clean Water, Clean Air, EPA, Endangered Species etc, etc.  Clinton was a moderate Dem who served at a time when conservative ideas were ascendant:  welfare reform, NAFTA, etc.  Clinton spent the last six years of his administration playing defense against the conservatives.

Of course all of this is much too nuanced, and it requires far too much knowledge of history for most voters.  Based on the ridiculous responses coming from many folks in the blogosphere, it is apparently over the heads of many here.  Eventually, if the Clintons are successful in distorting his comments long enough, Obama will, no doubt, become just like most other politicians: he will stop speaking the truth.

Again, thanks for an honest response to this latest tempest in a teapot.

Obama was meant to be the Trifecta for the Republicans.

First and foremost, he was meant to kill the Clintons, which is still the very core of the Democratic Party.  This is what the MSM has longed for fifteen years, and failed to achieve.

Secondly, because his heart and soul is with Reagan and Reaganomics (anyone who has read THE AUDACITY OF HOPE knows that he has as much contempt for the Clintons as does any Bush-leaguer), if he were to prevail, he would govern as a Reagan Democrat--thus destroying progressive ideals for another generation.

If he were to ever be the nominee, the racial divide would be most manifest--two Caucasian voters calling him out for every one African-American voter foolishly calling him in.

Finally, he undermines the very core of the Democratic Party.

Here is the greatest irony of them all:  the blogosphere, thinking that they are hurting Senator Clinton for her Iraq vote and Washington ties, are, in truth, killing their own progressive agenda.  They have chosen to admonish a lady with a thirty-five year 97% ADA approval record in a favor of a three-year Senate neophyte voting "present" half the time.

The biggest fools, by far, are the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada, who are even now being strong-armed by their "bosses" to vote against their hearts and minds and mindlessly and thoughtlessly endorse Obama.

The candidate who praises Reagan, whose first major act as President was to destroy the PATCO Union, and give legitimacy to union-busting efforts ever afterwards.

So, a GOP dream--Obama the honey of the MSM, fostered now by bosses for Culinary Workers Union--would in fact "bust" that very union, if Obama had his druthers, if ever Chief Executive.

In other words, union persons in Nevada today voting for Obama are in effect voting against their own interests, just as progressives in the blogosphere for Obama are voting against their own interests.

Worse still would be--however very unlikely--an Obama presidency.  He would be following the Reagan line, probably more so than ever did GWB.

And as the United States is in now in shambles because of GWB and Right-wing policies, the country would swiftly make its way to its then certain inexorable death.

And because in name only Obama would have the "Dem" moniker, it would be "Dems" who would be blamed entirely, and never have a chance of governing again for another generation.

I saw through this snake-oil salesman right after reading his credo in THE AUDACITY OF HOPE.  The good voters of New Hampshire were prescient enough to check him out.  They have been the heroes of the primary process thus far.

As to Nevada, I already know that the hearts and minds of the Democratic base there is NOT with Obama.  

The only way he wins it is with bought-and bused-in hordes (like Iowa), and more importantly now, with voter intimidation by virtue of his thuggish union bosses, who again, ironically, are in fact voting against their own interests.

But whether true hearts and minds prevail in Nevada, as opposed to thug bosses, and whether non-racial cards prevail in South Carolina, is ultimately moot.

Come Florida and beyond, we bedrock Democrats are taking back our party.  Obama's come-uppance is imminent now, his glory days with his stroking MSM and blogosphere are very numbered indeed.

Everytime the conventional wisdom on the blogs say Obama has commited a gaffe... it works out to his advantage down the road.

meeting with foreign leaders? what a gaffe. no.
Pakistan stance? what a gaffe...no.

ect.ect..

I am so offended when he talks about getting past the Democrats and Republicans of the '60's, '70's, 80's and '90's. Does he know how much work has been put in by Democrats during those periods to help people. He seems to want to dismiss all of America and American history. There was really good work done by Democratic  Partisans

Thanks Jerome.  I'll take my warning. I accept it. No arguments on my end.

But I have to tell you, I'm so tried of Obama and what he stands for. He's a race baiter and tried to destroy the Clintons. I take offense to that as a AA, when I know their record in dealing with Civil Rights.  I hope he gets taken down in this presidential process so see how it feels.  Not to mention his supporters are outrageous and condescending, not only on this site, but daily kos, open left, Democratic Underground and many others.

I appreciate your site and way you run it.

I hated Reagan and worked hard to fight a lot of his policies.  However, I think what Obama said about the Repub party being the party of ideas for the last couple of decades is correct.  Numerous books and analysis, including Matt Bai's The Argument, Crashing the Gate and the numerous books by David Brock, point out the Repubs have had a much stronger think tank network for years which has pumped out lots of ideas.  They sucked but the fact that they were proposing new solutions meant the Dems spent most of the time playing defense.  

It has been one of my frustrations with both the progressive movement and the Dem establishment overall.  Why did it take until we lost the 2000 elections for the Dems to start building the type of policy think tanks/networks we should have built in the 1980s in response to Reagan's eletion?  We are finally building the type of policy network needed to compete with the Repubs but we are still behind the 8 ball and it has been way too long in coming.

Now I would never have said this publicly, especially to an editorial board, nor would I have praised Reagan but you can't fix a weakness if you don't acknowledge the problem.  We cannot not pretend the Democratic Party has been the party of ideas in recent decades.  It hasn't and I believe it is one of the reasons we have spent so much time in the wilderness.  

If Reagan was terrible, what does that make Jimmy Carter? Never mind.....he was a unmitigaed disaster....